A good portion of my attention this week has been devoted to The Dark Knight Trilogy, the home release of which was inaugurated this week with TDKR. I base how much I love a series by how hard it is for me to select a favorite from it.
For example. The original Terminator film is my favorite out of its series. Taught action and one of the best love stories ever. Give it to me.
Out of the original Star Wars trilogy, I favor "The Empire Strikes Back" over all others and rank "Star Wars" and "Return of the Jedi" in that order beneath it.
With the Alien series, the original would take top spot, with "Aliens" and "Prometheus" following in that order. "Alien 3" and "Alien Resurrection" are off somewhere in the realm of I don't care.
TDKT is an anomaly to that "formula." If I were to rank those films, it would be a hard decision given the wealth of memory and enjoyment attached to each film.
I saw "Batman Begins" at its midnight showing, June 15, 2005, the awkward space between my Junior and Senior years of high school. Totaling at three viewings throughout that summer, it became something to do. Each time, I crooned with the crowd at the reveal of the Joker card at the film's climax, eager to see the sequel already. In addition, I read the comics that influenced the film, primarily "Batman: Year One" as well as various comics revolving around the film's villains. I even purchased a Scarecrow action figure for no reason but to have it. A Halloween mask followed in the fall even.
Fast forward three years to July 18, 2008. My midnight showing tickets were purchased weeks in advance, three in total for myself and two friends forced on the ride. "The Dark Knight" has the Joker, my single favorite villain ever. Thus my anticipation for round two exceeded that of its predecessor. Comics were purchased, namely "The Long Halloween" and other works that influenced or would influence the remainder of the trilogy ("The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller). Yes, a Joker action figure was also purchased, for no real reason.
"The Dark Knight" is one of my favorite films of all time, but when stacked with its predecessor and sequel, its hard to rank them. Surprisingly I saw TDK the least amount of times in theaters: twice. My initial second viewing was circumvented by a tag-along who insisted on "Stepbrothers." So instead of witnessing the Joker destroying Gotham, I had to sit through Will Ferrell not being funny. Oh well, my second viewing came a few days later.
Four years later, my tickets for TDKR were pre-ordered, this time for myself and my partner, who graciously took my non-stop yammering about the films in the weeks before. Considering my status as a broke twenty-something, no comics or figures were purchased, granted most of the material the film was based on I already owned or read. TDKR did however, get four theatrical viewing from me (almost five) and all in a week. It had been the first time in years since I had enjoyed a film that much in theaters.
So if I had to rank this spectacular saga it would go:
"The Dark Knight"
"The Dark Knight Rises"
"Batman Begins"
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Bat Wars
Today marks the home release of "The Dark Knight Rises," the conclusion to director Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight Trilogy." I loved the movie, so much that in one week I saw it four times. I even saw it at the midnight showing, a tradition started with first film "Batman Begins" in 2005 and continued with "The Dark Knight" in 2008. In addition I saw "BB" three times in theaters and "TDK" twice, which should've been more but being in the Air Force at the time didn't allow for such free time.
"TDKR" is easily one of the best threequels out there and with its ability to stand against other, usually disappointing atrocities, made it and its preceding films into what I've called the "Star Wars" trilogy of our generation. Consider it this way.
When the first "Star Wars" came out it changed things, forever, redefining the blockbuster, franchise film as we know it. "Batman Begins" rebooted the Batman films from a nipple-marked grave, in the process invigorating the superhero genre with emotional gravitas and down-to-earth grit. The outbreak of Marvel films owes itself to this film, a sentiment marked by its creators and several others citing Nolan's inaugural film as influence.
Then come the big ones, the sequels that are so wildly favored, they are often considered superior to their predecessors. "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Dark Knight" are two such films. Both took the universe introduced in the previous film and turned it on its head, expanding it and sealing an insurmountable amount of fan favoritism.
The "Dark Knight Trilogy" bears considerably more weight in the violence and mental complexity department, structured around Bruce Wayne's struggle with his psyche, crusade and subsequent consequences Conversely "Star Wars" has admittedly more fun, centered around the Jedi training of Luke Skywalker that inevitably leads to his father's redemption.
"TDKR" and "Return of the Jedi" were both received similarly: fun, worthy conclusions that were not quite as good as their immediate predecessors. I agree mostly with that sentiment, but see "Jedi" as a near-perfect film, but lacks the (ahem) flawlessness of "Empire." It came upon one day when I was watching the speeder bike chase that "Jedi" would be perfect if not for one at that moment, impending doom: Ewoks.
"TDKR" compared to "TDK," suffers not from what it has that ruins it but what its lacking. A sentiment that most any reader can see coming, "TDKR" is marred by the question of "What if?" Specifically, what if Heath Ledger had not died, granting us not one, but two, films with his brilliant, disturbing portrayal of the greatest villain ever, the Joker. Granted that is pipe dreaming, but considering Joker's place as Batman's most important foe, it only makes sense that he would be a participant, at the least, in Wayne's final battle. But, we do have Bane, who while not quite the Joker, is an adequate villain who tests Batman almost as agonizingly as the Joker did.
"TDKR" is easily one of the best threequels out there and with its ability to stand against other, usually disappointing atrocities, made it and its preceding films into what I've called the "Star Wars" trilogy of our generation. Consider it this way.
When the first "Star Wars" came out it changed things, forever, redefining the blockbuster, franchise film as we know it. "Batman Begins" rebooted the Batman films from a nipple-marked grave, in the process invigorating the superhero genre with emotional gravitas and down-to-earth grit. The outbreak of Marvel films owes itself to this film, a sentiment marked by its creators and several others citing Nolan's inaugural film as influence.
Then come the big ones, the sequels that are so wildly favored, they are often considered superior to their predecessors. "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Dark Knight" are two such films. Both took the universe introduced in the previous film and turned it on its head, expanding it and sealing an insurmountable amount of fan favoritism.
The "Dark Knight Trilogy" bears considerably more weight in the violence and mental complexity department, structured around Bruce Wayne's struggle with his psyche, crusade and subsequent consequences Conversely "Star Wars" has admittedly more fun, centered around the Jedi training of Luke Skywalker that inevitably leads to his father's redemption.
"TDKR" and "Return of the Jedi" were both received similarly: fun, worthy conclusions that were not quite as good as their immediate predecessors. I agree mostly with that sentiment, but see "Jedi" as a near-perfect film, but lacks the (ahem) flawlessness of "Empire." It came upon one day when I was watching the speeder bike chase that "Jedi" would be perfect if not for one at that moment, impending doom: Ewoks.
"TDKR" compared to "TDK," suffers not from what it has that ruins it but what its lacking. A sentiment that most any reader can see coming, "TDKR" is marred by the question of "What if?" Specifically, what if Heath Ledger had not died, granting us not one, but two, films with his brilliant, disturbing portrayal of the greatest villain ever, the Joker. Granted that is pipe dreaming, but considering Joker's place as Batman's most important foe, it only makes sense that he would be a participant, at the least, in Wayne's final battle. But, we do have Bane, who while not quite the Joker, is an adequate villain who tests Batman almost as agonizingly as the Joker did.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Neon Genesis Evangelion
"Neon Genesis Evangelion" has remained my favorite anime for over a decade. My initial awareness of its existence happened in 1998 when I saw an ad for the Stateside VHS releases, the art designs piqued my interest greatly. Had I seen them at the time there was little chance I would've understood the emotional, psychological and Biblical complexities of the show.
In high school, Cartoon Network aired the series in bits and pieces, first as a couple of episodes for "Giant Robot Week" and then, two years later, the series in full. The show drew me into its post-apocalyptic grandeur, but its deep psychosis, both dark and bright, has remained one of the anime's defining connections with me.
Being depressed is a common condition of the human mind. One that most all of us suffer from, some more than others. We all seek to be with someone as being alone is unrewarding and terrifying, someone to simply hold our hand just to let us know they're there.
"Evangelion" uses this theme as the backbone and ultimate catalyst and trigger for the end of the world as depicted in its finale, the stunning film "End of Evangelion." Protagonist Shinji Ikari has the fate of humanity literally placed in his hands, his off-kilter state either fusing our souls into a single whole or granting us the ability to remain individuals if we can see ourselves happily in our own hearts.
Its sounds a tad mushy, but the truth is, we all want that, for the emotions of our immediate surroundings to tailor themselves to us, to hold and love us when needed. "Evangelion" strikes the right chord here, in all the show's vague, symbolic, insane, violent glory.
It is doubtful that much of what this flawed work of art will ever be replicated, but it is what can be gleaned from its unstable characters and their motives that makes it important and what is learned will especially help frame our interactions.
In high school, Cartoon Network aired the series in bits and pieces, first as a couple of episodes for "Giant Robot Week" and then, two years later, the series in full. The show drew me into its post-apocalyptic grandeur, but its deep psychosis, both dark and bright, has remained one of the anime's defining connections with me.
Being depressed is a common condition of the human mind. One that most all of us suffer from, some more than others. We all seek to be with someone as being alone is unrewarding and terrifying, someone to simply hold our hand just to let us know they're there.
"Evangelion" uses this theme as the backbone and ultimate catalyst and trigger for the end of the world as depicted in its finale, the stunning film "End of Evangelion." Protagonist Shinji Ikari has the fate of humanity literally placed in his hands, his off-kilter state either fusing our souls into a single whole or granting us the ability to remain individuals if we can see ourselves happily in our own hearts.
Its sounds a tad mushy, but the truth is, we all want that, for the emotions of our immediate surroundings to tailor themselves to us, to hold and love us when needed. "Evangelion" strikes the right chord here, in all the show's vague, symbolic, insane, violent glory.
It is doubtful that much of what this flawed work of art will ever be replicated, but it is what can be gleaned from its unstable characters and their motives that makes it important and what is learned will especially help frame our interactions.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
We don't have to see everything.
Nerdy franchises bear a weighty sum in Hollywood, "Star Wars" being the prime example. It has been the film industry's prerogative to tack on new installments to beloved series.
George Lucas did it with his prequels, and though it was done by its creator, we didn't really have to see how Anakin fell to the dark side. The original trilogy told us the skinny of it, from a certain point of view, and it was sufficient. It didn't matter how Anakin became Vader. His existence as a menacing Sith who could stand idle while whole planets are destroyed was what made his turn tragic and his redemption through his son, Luke, all the more important and centrifugal to the finale of "Return of the Jedi."
Now let's examine another beloved franchise that jumped the shark years ago. The "Alien" series, comprised of five films, has the oddest franchise track record. "Alien" was a masterpiece, period. Terrifying, claustrophobic and bleak, this sci-fi horror led to the creation of one the greatest action films ever made, its direct sequel, "Aliens." From there the series fell into murky waters with "Alien 3's" studio-mangled production and suffocation of fledling director David Fincher's obvious talent.
The last chronological entry in the series, "Alien Resurrection" was an odd bag of body horror that nearly eschewed everything that made its predecessors good, even the depressing, barren mood of "Alien 3" was ignored. Fuck this movie.
This year, "Alien" director Ridley Scott directed "Prometheus," a prequel to the original film. It polarized fans and critics, garnered my admiration and made $400 million worldwide. So comes by point with this franchise.
As with anything that makes money well, they want to make more. Some were pissed that "Prometheus" wasn't a direct prequel to "Alien" but more of an establishing of the mythos set-up mysteriously in the beginning of the latter film. People will always complain, myself among them, but when you're given something with more substance than 99 percent of similar films out there, you just have to swallow your pride and admit soemthing is good.
So is the case with "Prometheus." That being said, "Prometheus" itself doesn't need a sequel and another prequel to "Alien." We know where the Derelict ship came from. We have many interpretations of what the purpose of the xenomorph was, whether it be biological weapon or failed attempt at playing god, or both. I'm fine with just "Prometheus."
Here lies my ultimate irritation with the film business.
This summer saw the conclusion of director Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight Trilogy" with the release of "The Dark Knight Rises." Aside from the looming question of what the film could've been had Heather Ledger been alive, it was a near perfect ending that did things that not even its source material dared to do: the passing of the cowl to someone else.
Granted Batman has set aside the Batsuit from time to time, usually due to injury, such as in "Knightfall," a comic-arc from "TDKR" borrows from heavily, but Mr. Wayne, from my knowledge, has never desired, nor willingly, passed his crusade to another. The final scene depicted Joseph Gordon-Levitt's nice guy/tough guy cop discovering the Batcave and by proxy, Batman's legacy. This revelation was nicely touched when the character's first name was revealed to Robin, and the fanboys swooned with satisfaction.
Today it was announced that Levitt could portray Batman in the film adaptation of Justice League.
What. The. Fuck?
By doing this, the perfect synergy of the "Dark Knight Trilogy" will be spoiled. We don't need to see Levitt in the Batsuit, the booming implication at final film's conclusion was beyond satisfactory. In addition to that, the Justice League film would feature an abudance of fantastical elements, elements that had no place in Nolan's down-to-earth, gritty trilogy. If this casting were to become true then the stylistic integrity of the trilogy would be tarnished.
If we have Superman in the same continuity then we would have to question why Ra's Al Ghul in "Batman Begins" was not truly immortal (tongue-in-cheek, in film references aside) like he is in every other medium. Or why did Bane not use his signature, muscle drug, Venom? Though not as out there as Ra's immortality, it would have been a clunky effort in Nolan's universe.
George Lucas did it with his prequels, and though it was done by its creator, we didn't really have to see how Anakin fell to the dark side. The original trilogy told us the skinny of it, from a certain point of view, and it was sufficient. It didn't matter how Anakin became Vader. His existence as a menacing Sith who could stand idle while whole planets are destroyed was what made his turn tragic and his redemption through his son, Luke, all the more important and centrifugal to the finale of "Return of the Jedi."
Now let's examine another beloved franchise that jumped the shark years ago. The "Alien" series, comprised of five films, has the oddest franchise track record. "Alien" was a masterpiece, period. Terrifying, claustrophobic and bleak, this sci-fi horror led to the creation of one the greatest action films ever made, its direct sequel, "Aliens." From there the series fell into murky waters with "Alien 3's" studio-mangled production and suffocation of fledling director David Fincher's obvious talent.
The last chronological entry in the series, "Alien Resurrection" was an odd bag of body horror that nearly eschewed everything that made its predecessors good, even the depressing, barren mood of "Alien 3" was ignored. Fuck this movie.
This year, "Alien" director Ridley Scott directed "Prometheus," a prequel to the original film. It polarized fans and critics, garnered my admiration and made $400 million worldwide. So comes by point with this franchise.
As with anything that makes money well, they want to make more. Some were pissed that "Prometheus" wasn't a direct prequel to "Alien" but more of an establishing of the mythos set-up mysteriously in the beginning of the latter film. People will always complain, myself among them, but when you're given something with more substance than 99 percent of similar films out there, you just have to swallow your pride and admit soemthing is good.
So is the case with "Prometheus." That being said, "Prometheus" itself doesn't need a sequel and another prequel to "Alien." We know where the Derelict ship came from. We have many interpretations of what the purpose of the xenomorph was, whether it be biological weapon or failed attempt at playing god, or both. I'm fine with just "Prometheus."
Here lies my ultimate irritation with the film business.
This summer saw the conclusion of director Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight Trilogy" with the release of "The Dark Knight Rises." Aside from the looming question of what the film could've been had Heather Ledger been alive, it was a near perfect ending that did things that not even its source material dared to do: the passing of the cowl to someone else.
Granted Batman has set aside the Batsuit from time to time, usually due to injury, such as in "Knightfall," a comic-arc from "TDKR" borrows from heavily, but Mr. Wayne, from my knowledge, has never desired, nor willingly, passed his crusade to another. The final scene depicted Joseph Gordon-Levitt's nice guy/tough guy cop discovering the Batcave and by proxy, Batman's legacy. This revelation was nicely touched when the character's first name was revealed to Robin, and the fanboys swooned with satisfaction.
Today it was announced that Levitt could portray Batman in the film adaptation of Justice League.
What. The. Fuck?
By doing this, the perfect synergy of the "Dark Knight Trilogy" will be spoiled. We don't need to see Levitt in the Batsuit, the booming implication at final film's conclusion was beyond satisfactory. In addition to that, the Justice League film would feature an abudance of fantastical elements, elements that had no place in Nolan's down-to-earth, gritty trilogy. If this casting were to become true then the stylistic integrity of the trilogy would be tarnished.
If we have Superman in the same continuity then we would have to question why Ra's Al Ghul in "Batman Begins" was not truly immortal (tongue-in-cheek, in film references aside) like he is in every other medium. Or why did Bane not use his signature, muscle drug, Venom? Though not as out there as Ra's immortality, it would have been a clunky effort in Nolan's universe.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Separation of Church and State
Religion, of any variant, creed or system, should never be allowed to extend its reach and rules into the governing body. America needs to take a serious look at the invasive ways of Judeo-Christian religions.
The fact that people think they can dictate what a woman does with her body and how homosexuals can live based on Biblical grounds is audacious.
I have visited Christianity twice in my life. First when I was a child then again when I was 23, finishing my term in the military. Call the latter moral hiccup a stress induced Christian-coma or what not, its still beyond me given how much of an anti-Christ I was prior and am now.
My "finding Jesus" (barf) eventually brought to prominence my sexuality, which due to the at the time ban of serving openly in the military, was half-closeted, going to fully re-closeted following Christian principles.
Obviously, that major, natural part of me could not be ignored and not surprising of most of the company I kept, was swiftly extirpated from social gatherings and prevented from having my male significant other stay over as dictated by a roommate. At 23 having served my country for 4 years, I wasn't going to allow my freedom's in that house, to which my rent was always paid, be trampled.
So began my long overdue, full revealing from the closet that included the breaking of ties with several friends and the renewing of bonds with others. I received some flack from family, namely my Aunt, whose inncesseant insertion of the Bible in every moral situation finally reached a crescendo with me, leading to a heated argument. Rightfully and with just cause, I did not speak to her for almost a year and still maintain loose contact with her.
Another fallout happened between myself and my elusive biological mother and her Mormon whelps that are my half-siblings. Our falling out was not very tragic given her relative absence when I was growing up and her whiny jabs at my father, who solely raised me, reopened and salted old wounds. It was my brimstone half-brother and his calling me "a thing that mates with its own sex" that put the nail in the coffin. Spilled milk, really.
At this point I have no stomach for any member of any religion's thoughts on who I am. Much of the country is sick to high hell of Christianity's homophobic, misogynistic and racist viewpoints and its honestly baffling how we have let it go on for so long.
The fact that people think they can dictate what a woman does with her body and how homosexuals can live based on Biblical grounds is audacious.
I have visited Christianity twice in my life. First when I was a child then again when I was 23, finishing my term in the military. Call the latter moral hiccup a stress induced Christian-coma or what not, its still beyond me given how much of an anti-Christ I was prior and am now.
My "finding Jesus" (barf) eventually brought to prominence my sexuality, which due to the at the time ban of serving openly in the military, was half-closeted, going to fully re-closeted following Christian principles.
Obviously, that major, natural part of me could not be ignored and not surprising of most of the company I kept, was swiftly extirpated from social gatherings and prevented from having my male significant other stay over as dictated by a roommate. At 23 having served my country for 4 years, I wasn't going to allow my freedom's in that house, to which my rent was always paid, be trampled.
So began my long overdue, full revealing from the closet that included the breaking of ties with several friends and the renewing of bonds with others. I received some flack from family, namely my Aunt, whose inncesseant insertion of the Bible in every moral situation finally reached a crescendo with me, leading to a heated argument. Rightfully and with just cause, I did not speak to her for almost a year and still maintain loose contact with her.
Another fallout happened between myself and my elusive biological mother and her Mormon whelps that are my half-siblings. Our falling out was not very tragic given her relative absence when I was growing up and her whiny jabs at my father, who solely raised me, reopened and salted old wounds. It was my brimstone half-brother and his calling me "a thing that mates with its own sex" that put the nail in the coffin. Spilled milk, really.
At this point I have no stomach for any member of any religion's thoughts on who I am. Much of the country is sick to high hell of Christianity's homophobic, misogynistic and racist viewpoints and its honestly baffling how we have let it go on for so long.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Catharsis: Passion
When I was younger an acquaintance played for me Catharsis's debut record, "Samsara." I found the record wholesome metalcore but nothing overtly special.
Recently while having a casual chat with Adam of Withdrawal on Facebook, he shot me a Youtube video of the song "Duende" from their second album "Passion."
Once the sprawling seven-minute song was over, I immediately desired the record in full. Its discovery proved to be a pleasure as I asked myself why I had not taken the time to use "Samsara" as a jumping point for "Passion," a vastly superior record. Kind of a kick in the ass to myself since both records were released in the mid- and late 90s, respectively.
"Passion" is perfect, a brand of Holy Terror hardcore that possesses more life than most of its contemporaries, rivaled by only The Banner and Withdrawal. What Catharsis second LP takes away from other, weightier peers such as Integrity and Gehenna, is the apocalyptic grandeur that those bands spew out without a moment's hesitation.
"Passion" fuses aggression with unconventional musicianship, especially considering the at times narrow space in which the hardcore punk genre moves. The 90s served to move hardcore from the uniformity and brotherhood of the 80s straight edge, Youth Crew dominance into the more experimental, darker and esoteric territory.
While I was not a professed "hardcore kid" until my mid-teens, a casual analysis at the annals of hardcore history will serve to notice the trend mentioned above. Most of favorite hardcore records were spawned from the 90s. The majority of Integrity's catalog from the era always has a place on my media players, while the works of Gehenna and Disembodied (dark, not Holy Terror) make frequent rotations.
The fact that has always drawn me to the Holy Terror vein of hardcore is its unabashed attitude towards the religions and world that these bands mean to sonically disembowel. The artists involved have low profiles, sticking to their lavish use of occultism and nihilism.
What "Passion" does is a little of everything. It's certainly not a "nice" record as it makes a point to strip humanity of its grandest comforts, namely government and religions, not surprising giving the group's ties to anarchist group, Crimethinc. But behind this anti-establishment is a hope that mankind will do better, harnessing their minds to create less oppressive wonders. It asks and even outright mocks the listener for complacency and social negligence, demanding them take up arms and brain.
"Samsara," while not as all-around pleasing as "Passion," has the same stand-up-and-fight fervor, affording Catharsis a near flawless discography. As stated on "Samsara":
"Use your heads, humanity.
Take control.
Choose your heaven.
Accept no gods, no masters."
Recently while having a casual chat with Adam of Withdrawal on Facebook, he shot me a Youtube video of the song "Duende" from their second album "Passion."
Once the sprawling seven-minute song was over, I immediately desired the record in full. Its discovery proved to be a pleasure as I asked myself why I had not taken the time to use "Samsara" as a jumping point for "Passion," a vastly superior record. Kind of a kick in the ass to myself since both records were released in the mid- and late 90s, respectively.
"Passion" is perfect, a brand of Holy Terror hardcore that possesses more life than most of its contemporaries, rivaled by only The Banner and Withdrawal. What Catharsis second LP takes away from other, weightier peers such as Integrity and Gehenna, is the apocalyptic grandeur that those bands spew out without a moment's hesitation.
"Passion" fuses aggression with unconventional musicianship, especially considering the at times narrow space in which the hardcore punk genre moves. The 90s served to move hardcore from the uniformity and brotherhood of the 80s straight edge, Youth Crew dominance into the more experimental, darker and esoteric territory.
While I was not a professed "hardcore kid" until my mid-teens, a casual analysis at the annals of hardcore history will serve to notice the trend mentioned above. Most of favorite hardcore records were spawned from the 90s. The majority of Integrity's catalog from the era always has a place on my media players, while the works of Gehenna and Disembodied (dark, not Holy Terror) make frequent rotations.
The fact that has always drawn me to the Holy Terror vein of hardcore is its unabashed attitude towards the religions and world that these bands mean to sonically disembowel. The artists involved have low profiles, sticking to their lavish use of occultism and nihilism.
What "Passion" does is a little of everything. It's certainly not a "nice" record as it makes a point to strip humanity of its grandest comforts, namely government and religions, not surprising giving the group's ties to anarchist group, Crimethinc. But behind this anti-establishment is a hope that mankind will do better, harnessing their minds to create less oppressive wonders. It asks and even outright mocks the listener for complacency and social negligence, demanding them take up arms and brain.
"Samsara," while not as all-around pleasing as "Passion," has the same stand-up-and-fight fervor, affording Catharsis a near flawless discography. As stated on "Samsara":
"Use your heads, humanity.
Take control.
Choose your heaven.
Accept no gods, no masters."
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
In irritation and defense of George Lucas
"Star Wars" was my childhood. Yes there was Batman, Pokemon, "Alien" and "The Terminator," but "Star Wars" was my first, full scale pop culture obsession (dinosaurs were technically first, but they're different).
I remember each instance of when I saw the original three films. Every time on my grandmother's couch at the age of 8, rented VHS tapes untouched by the digital meddling Lucas would commit two years later. It was wondrous and even now watching the theatrical version of the Original Trilogy on DVD, that wonder is retained.
Some of his edits were whatever but others were audacious, leading me to my near universal preference of the aforementioned DVDs when watching them, despite my owning of the well-done BD "Complete Saga' set. I want untouched "Star Wars" on BD!
The clumsiness of the prequels only serves to heighten Lucas's boldness in taking a series once beloved for its story and impact and draining it for profit.
Yes the prequels were entertaining, I'll give them that. I can't ever completely hate them since I was still young when "Episode I" came out and let's face it Darth Maul's pretty awesome. "Episode II" had great action sequences and it was pleasing to Slave I in action.
"Episode III" bother me with its inability to stay in one location for more than five minutes. Lucas, I didn't need to see that much from the galaxy far, far away, as cool as some of it was. The penultimate, destiny-defining lightsaber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan was spectacular, if a little drawn out and at times too unbelievable.
Almost everything in "Episode II" and "III" was fucking green screen by the way that has not aged well in the least, especially in comparison to the painstaking models, mattes and puppets of the originals.
I digress...
Lucas certainly knows the money his movies make and to an extent one cannot blame him for his apparent milking. My assessment of this one-time genius stands that he still retains said genius but lost sight of the magic and creative fervor that was so clear when he directed the original film. In interviews he seems to still feel something for the saga, but I think he loses his intention in translating it from his brain to our shared reality.
I'm sure to him the prequels and originals are like some magnificent, stream-lined, well connected story of redemption. That is only half true as the prequels created many inconsistencies with their predecessors and his tinkering with the latter has served to only salt wounds.
His involvement with fandom is a complex one and is both a comfort and curse that few, if any, other franchises can boast of. He's executive production of some of the "Robot Chicken Star Wars" and contribution to the fanfuckingtastic film "Fanboys" only goes to show that he's not a heartless prick who doesn't listen, he just want his creation to be his way.
Now that Disney's has the reigns, I'm happy he's able to step back but I don't want a completely Lucas-free "Star Wars." It just wouldn't be the same.
I remember each instance of when I saw the original three films. Every time on my grandmother's couch at the age of 8, rented VHS tapes untouched by the digital meddling Lucas would commit two years later. It was wondrous and even now watching the theatrical version of the Original Trilogy on DVD, that wonder is retained.
Some of his edits were whatever but others were audacious, leading me to my near universal preference of the aforementioned DVDs when watching them, despite my owning of the well-done BD "Complete Saga' set. I want untouched "Star Wars" on BD!
The clumsiness of the prequels only serves to heighten Lucas's boldness in taking a series once beloved for its story and impact and draining it for profit.
Yes the prequels were entertaining, I'll give them that. I can't ever completely hate them since I was still young when "Episode I" came out and let's face it Darth Maul's pretty awesome. "Episode II" had great action sequences and it was pleasing to Slave I in action.
"Episode III" bother me with its inability to stay in one location for more than five minutes. Lucas, I didn't need to see that much from the galaxy far, far away, as cool as some of it was. The penultimate, destiny-defining lightsaber duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan was spectacular, if a little drawn out and at times too unbelievable.
Almost everything in "Episode II" and "III" was fucking green screen by the way that has not aged well in the least, especially in comparison to the painstaking models, mattes and puppets of the originals.
I digress...
Lucas certainly knows the money his movies make and to an extent one cannot blame him for his apparent milking. My assessment of this one-time genius stands that he still retains said genius but lost sight of the magic and creative fervor that was so clear when he directed the original film. In interviews he seems to still feel something for the saga, but I think he loses his intention in translating it from his brain to our shared reality.
I'm sure to him the prequels and originals are like some magnificent, stream-lined, well connected story of redemption. That is only half true as the prequels created many inconsistencies with their predecessors and his tinkering with the latter has served to only salt wounds.
His involvement with fandom is a complex one and is both a comfort and curse that few, if any, other franchises can boast of. He's executive production of some of the "Robot Chicken Star Wars" and contribution to the fanfuckingtastic film "Fanboys" only goes to show that he's not a heartless prick who doesn't listen, he just want his creation to be his way.
Now that Disney's has the reigns, I'm happy he's able to step back but I don't want a completely Lucas-free "Star Wars." It just wouldn't be the same.
Dirty old Republicans
I would like to call out the straight upper-class Bible-thumpers of this country and ask you where you get off?
The magnified view that this demographic has on what a woman does with her body and same-sex couples do in their bedroom is honestly crude, intrusive and disturbing.
If you're not a woman, don't tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
If you're not gay, don't tell me who I can't marry or where or have the audacity to tell me my mental condition.
Keep your eyes out my bedroom, out of her pants and quietly down at your thick, hypocrisy pamphlets.
Secession
All 50 states submitting secession petitions is honestly so dramatic its cute. It is my sincerest hope that this is either a tantrum or to make political point. Either way, I find the idea of it inconsiderate to the majority of the populations that haven't and won't sign these petitions and ironically counter-productive to all those likely signing these petitions who griped about the fall of America.
I've encountered a lot of nutjobs during this election season, people hopped up on every conspiratorial blog and article they can find and when challenged on their radical stances with my own, tell me to support my arguments with link after link after link.
Sorry, I don't need to comb the Internet looking for fodder for your doomsayer rants. I will however tell you my sources: the news and my ability to take press with a grain of salt, as it should be done.
The fact is, nobody is honest, not for sure. Anybody can write anything. Anybody can cite anything. It's an endless cycle, so I base my judgments on what I see and couple it with what I read.
Romney was my devil but Obama is other's. Where's the middle?
I've encountered a lot of nutjobs during this election season, people hopped up on every conspiratorial blog and article they can find and when challenged on their radical stances with my own, tell me to support my arguments with link after link after link.
Sorry, I don't need to comb the Internet looking for fodder for your doomsayer rants. I will however tell you my sources: the news and my ability to take press with a grain of salt, as it should be done.
The fact is, nobody is honest, not for sure. Anybody can write anything. Anybody can cite anything. It's an endless cycle, so I base my judgments on what I see and couple it with what I read.
Romney was my devil but Obama is other's. Where's the middle?
Joy Division: Unknown Pleasures
This time of year tends to bring out my love for the music of Joy Division. A band three decades dead whose music is of the utmost resonance with over three decades' worth of influence. None more so than their seminal debut "Unknown Pleasures."
This record is bleak, sad and beautiful. While the majority of my favorite records tend to be faster, more aggressive, "Unknown Pleasures" is my most favorite, a work of art that tugs on my heartstrings like no other.
Listen "New Dawn Fades" and you will see what I mean.
An explosion of the softest form, a declaration of numb love and the failing grasp to hang on to it, shouldered on sinister bass lines, delicate, ethereal riffs and a funeral's snare. Ian Curtis, Joy Division's face and baritone voice of sorrow, is at his most convincing here, you want to hold someone after hearing this song.
This record is bleak, sad and beautiful. While the majority of my favorite records tend to be faster, more aggressive, "Unknown Pleasures" is my most favorite, a work of art that tugs on my heartstrings like no other.
Listen "New Dawn Fades" and you will see what I mean.
An explosion of the softest form, a declaration of numb love and the failing grasp to hang on to it, shouldered on sinister bass lines, delicate, ethereal riffs and a funeral's snare. Ian Curtis, Joy Division's face and baritone voice of sorrow, is at his most convincing here, you want to hold someone after hearing this song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)